Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding dogs and dog bites in Indigenous northern communities: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The singular relationship developed over the years between northern Indigenous peoples and dogs has been profoundly changed through historical trauma, settlements and increased use of snowmobiles. Issues related to dogs have become increasingly complex and worrisome with the endemic presence of the rabies virus among Arctic fox populations, and given the fact that northern Indigenous peoples may have a higher risk of dog bites than the general population. This study aimed to investigate factors related to the risk of dog bites in Naskapi and Innu communities located in northern Quebec (Canada) by (1) describing the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) regarding dogs and dog bites in these communities, and (2) analyzing experiences of inhabitants and health professionals with regard to dog bites and their management. Methods: = 37) were then conducted with victims of dog bites, owners of dogs that have bitten a person before, and health professionals. Descriptive and inferential analysis (quantitative data) and thematic analysis (qualitative data) were performed. Results and discussion: Results highlighted that 21% of respondents have had a dog bite in their lifetime. Most respondents were not aware of the risk of contracting rabies following a dog bite, although rabies risk perception was associated with risk perception of dogs (linear regression: coefficient = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.36-1.02). The odds of being more knowledgeable on rabies were higher (logistic regression: OR = 2.92, 95% CI = 1.07-7.98) among young adults. Dogs were perceived as both threats and protectors by community members. When the fear of dogs was present, it affected the quality of life of some inhabitants. There was confusion about responsibilities in the management of biting dogs, although protocols to follow after a bite were clear for health care professionals. This study revealed a lack of awareness and knowledge about dog bites and rabies risks in both communities. Results provide important knowledge for the development of interventions adapted to northern Indigenous communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".